Unsubstantiated mental-disorder allegations attack dignity and amount to legal cruelty, Karnataka High Court says

The parties married on 19 May 2019 and lived together for approximately four weeks, before the wife left the matrimonial home on 25 June 2019.

The husband petitioned for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and that the wife suffered from a mental disorder. The Family Court dismissed his petition and the wife’s counterclaim for compensation. The husband appealed.

1. Whether the husband established that the Family Court’s judgment and order refusing divorce warranted appellate interference.

2. Whether the husband proved cruelty or that the wife suffered from a mental disorder of the kind and extent contemplated by Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits divorce where the other spouse has treated the petitioner with cruelty; Section 13(1)(iii) applies where the other spouse is incurably of unsound mind or suffers from a mental disorder of such kind and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them.

The party seeking relief bears the burden of proving the pleaded grounds: merely marking a document as an exhibit does not establish the truth of its contents, which must be proved by appropriate evidence.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not, by itself, a statutory ground for divorce under the Act; the Supreme Court authorities cited by the husband had granted relief under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Court also referred to Section 13(1A)(ii), concerning divorce following a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and a subsequent period without restitution.

The husband relied on hospital receipts and reports to support his allegation of mental disorder, but did not examine a treating doctor or expert, and produced no certificate establishing the alleged condition. The documents’ marking did not prove their contents.

His testimony also included admissions inconsistent with the claim, including that the wife was mentally sound.

The Court found no sufficient oral or documentary evidence proving cruelty, particularly given the parties’ brief period of cohabitation.

It rejected irretrievable breakdown as an independent statutory ground and noted that the husband had not sought restitution of conjugal rights.

It dismissed the appeal, leaving the dismissal of the husband’s divorce petition undisturbed.